and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

This is a CR from OG, so all those avoiding OG questions [#permalink]
09 Aug 2005, 07:42

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0%(00:00) correct
100%(01:18) wrong based on 4 sessions

This is a CR from OG, so all those avoiding OG questions before taking Powerprep may skip this one.

I got the correct answer but I'm dubious about the explanation.

----------------

Codex Berinensis, a Florentine copy of an ancient roman medical treatise , is undated but contains clues to when it was produced. Its first eighty pages are by a single copyist, but the remaining twenty pages are by three different copyists, which indicates some significant disruption. Since a letter in handwriting identified as that of the fourth copyist mentions a plague that killed many people in florence in 1148, Codex Berinensis was probably produced in that year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis that Codex Berinensis was produced in 1148?

a) Other than Codex Berinensis, there are no known samples of the handwriting of the first three copyists
b) According to the account by the fourth copyist, the plague went on for ten months.
c) A scribe would be able to copy a page of text the size and style of Codex Berinensis in a day.
d) there was only on outbreak of plague in florence in the 1100s
e) The number of pages of Codex Berinensis produced by a single scribe becomes smaller with each successive change of copyist

I think the argument says that the script seems to be from 1148 or so because there is no trace of any other activity afterwords in the script. So, it is possible that whoever worked on it earlier, died of plague.

I think its D because if there were other plagues, other than the one in 1148, known to have affected Florentine then the manuscript could have been written around those times as well, and thus would not support the argument that the thing was written in 1148. _________________

This is a CR from OG, so all those avoiding OG questions before taking Powerprep may skip this one.

I got the correct answer but I'm dubious about the explanation.

----------------

Codex Berinensis, a Florentine copy of an ancient roman medical treatise , is undated but contains clues to when it was produced. Its first eighty pages are by a single copyist, but the remaining twenty pages are by three different copyists, which indicates some significant disruption. Since a letter in handwriting identified as that of the fourth copyist mentions a plague that killed many people in florence in 1148, Codex Berinensis was probably produced in that year.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis that Codex Berinensis was produced in 1148?

a) Other than Codex Berinensis, there are no known samples of the handwriting of the first three copyists -> this is irrelevant ,out of scopeb) According to the account by the fourth copyist, the plague went on for ten months. -> this hardly matters !!! its the incidence of plague not duration which should support the conclc) A scribe would be able to copy a page of text the size and style of Codex Berinensis in a day. -> this weakens d) there was only on outbreak of plague in florence in the 1100s -> correct if only one occurance then for sure the report is produced in that year CORRECT acc to me OA PLSSSSe) The number of pages of Codex Berinensis produced by a single scribe becomes smaller with each successive change of copyist -> this is just the trend discussed does not contribute to the given concl

Thanks. Does the passage mean that the fourth copyist specifically mentions the year 1148? Or does it mean that the copyist mentions a horrible plague in florence that could only mean the one that occured in 1148 (because that is only time in the century when a plague occured there)?

Thanks. Does the passage mean that the fourth copyist specifically mentions the year 1148? Or does it mean that the copyist mentions a horrible plague in florence that could only mean the one that occured in 1148 (because that is only time in the century when a plague occured there)?

According to the passage, a letter mentioning a horrible plague, with the same handwriting as the 4th copyist's, was found so they're assuming that the manuscript itself was written around that time as well. Neither the letter nor the manuscript mentions any dates (if it were the case, there would be no question that the manuscript was indeed created in 1148). Historically, however, Florence is known to have been ravaged by the plague in 1148, so that's what the researchers are basing their assumption on.

According to the passage, a letter mentioning a horrible plague, with the same handwriting as the 4th copyist's, was found so they're assuming that the manuscript itself was written around that time as well. Neither the letter nor the manuscript mentions any dates (if it were the case, there would be no question that the manuscript was indeed created in 1148). Historically, however, Florence is known to have been ravaged by the plague in 1148, so that's what the researchers are basing their assumption on.

Horrible and a meaningless question-that's why it is difficult as well!If the 1st author of the treatise was alive then he would have solely written the manuscript. The fact that 4 of them were involved means that the first 3 may have been afflicted with the disease and died. Since the disease (plague) happened only once in Florence and took several lives, in 1948, the treatise must have been written in 1948. This is what, I think, the author is basing the answer on.My ans. would be D.

I get the idea that stenghten answer choices shouldn't be absolutely necessary to "prove" the conclusion, but the fact that there wasn't a plague 50 years before or after 1148 doesn't really provide the support we would feel is appropriate when such argument is made.

In order for us to consider the reasoning, we must assume a chain of things: The copy was made within 1 year, because it is claimed it was probably made in 1148 => the fourth copyist "started to exist" once he started his work , because we have to exclude the possibility that he reported the plague in handwriting years before he started copying => a plague is the only cause of the disruption and the various copyists, not some other event => it is the plague in 1148 and not another plague

We have to assume so much and the correct answer choice confirms only the end of the chain " it is the pague in 1148 and not another plague".